3. Methods

3.1 Fish Habitat Assessment

Clisbako River and McFarland Creek were divided into reaches by measuring stream gradients from 1:20,000 scale TRIM base maps, interpreting 1:15,000 air photos and a helicopter overflight of the watershed. See Appendix for stream, tables and figure for reach break locations.

The fish habitat assessment of Clisbako River and McFarland Creek fundamentally followed the procedures outlined in the Fish Habitat Assessment Procedures manual (WRP Technical Circular No. 8; Johnston and Slaney, 1996). Fish habitat assessments were completed for reaches which had previously been identified as high priority in the FHAP Overview. These particular reaches were sampled using a sub-sampling fraction of 1/3 for each habitat unit. This fraction guaranteed a detailed analysis of at least 33.3% for all pools, glides, riffles and cascades. On occasion, some habitat units were sub-sampled at 1/2 and 1/1 when stream conditions warranted a higher fraction (i.e. very few pools). Thus, habitat unit averages are extrapolated over the entire reach from our detailed assessments. The habitat surveys of these sub-sampled units involved the measurement of all physical parameters outlined in Form 4 (Technical Circular No.8, pg.92-93). This process required a crew of three people to walk the sample sites and took 10 days during the period of September 5-14, 1997.

The physical parameters outlined in Form 4 (Technical Circular No.8, pg. 92-93, 1996) were measured in a two stage process. Initially, while the crew walked the stream, one crew member hip-chained the sample site and recorded the length of individual hydraulic units. Habitat units were classified according to definitions outlined in Technical Circular No.8 (Johnston and Slaney, 1996), which included pools, glides, riffles and cascades. This chaining process provided information on the length and the frequency at which individual habitat units occurred throughout the reach. During this process, notations were made of side channels and their potential for restoration, the height and passability of waterfalls, slope or bank failures and signs of habitat degradation. Photographs of representative sections of each reach, migration barriers and degraded habitat units were also taken (Appendix )

Secondly, when a habitat unit needed to be measured in detail, all physical parameters were measured and not visually estimated. Methodologies of the measurement of physical parameters of fish habitat are described in detail in Technical Circular No.8 (Johnston and Slaney, 1996). The various parameters assessed in each habitat unit and their method of measurement are shown in Table 1. All habitat data was entered into Form 4 of Technical Circular No.8 (Johnston and Slaney, 1996) to ensure consistency in data collection.

Table 1. Physical parameters assessed for each habitat unit within a sample site.

3.1 Fish Use Assessment

Confirmation of the presence or absence of salmonids within the Clisbako River and McFarland Creek sub-basin was determined by electrofishing. Selected habitat units were randomly sampled using the single pass removal method. All fish captured were identified, assessed for life stage and recorded in Form 5 of Technical Circular No.8 (Johnston and Slaney, 1996). If the identity of any fish was in doubt, the taxonomic keys in Field Key to the Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia (McPhail and Carveth, 1993) and/or Fresh Water Fishes of Canada (Scott and Crossman, 1990) were used. Detailed methods of electrofishing are outlined in the Fish Stream Identification Guide Book, July 1995 and the Lake and Stream Inventory, Standards and Procedures (RIC, 1995)

2. Fish Habitat Evaluation

The assessment of fish habitat in the Clisbako River and McFarland Creek sub-basins was based on the calculation of various habitat parameter statistics. By comparing these values to set diagnostic values, fish habitat was rated as "good", "fair", or "poor". The diagnostic values used to compare assessed habitat values, as well a detailed habitat evaluation procedure, can be found in Table 5, pages 54-59 of Technical Circular No. 8 (Johnston and Slaney, 1996). The criteria outlined in Table 5 were used except for certain habitat parameters listed below:

• Percent Pools

• Off-Channel Habitat

• Holding Pools

• Access to Spawning Areas

Also, Appendix E, Questions for Habitat Evaluation, from Technical Circular No.8 (Johnston and Slaney, 1996), was used to identify potentially degraded or limiting salmonid habitats. Habitat evaluation values were calculated for reaches identified in the FHAP overview as high priority. All values were derived from measurements of habitat units, which had been measured for length and width over the entire reach. In addition, some habitat units were further sampled in detail according to the sub-sampling fraction that had been established. Reaches which followed normal riffle-pool-glide sequences were sub-sampled at 1/3. This sub-sampling fraction ensured that about 33.3% of each reach was sampled in detail. Habitat parameters included calculations for percent pools, pool frequency, number of LWD pieces per channel width, percent cover, dominant and subdominant substrates, off-channel habitat, spawning gravel quantity/quality, access for spawning adults and number of adult holding pools. Redd scour was not evaluated due to a lack of historical information on spawning beds. Values for all parameters mentioned above have been entered into Form 6 of Technical Circular No.8 (Johnston and Slaney, 1996).